Friday, April 10, 2009

Waxman and Markey: Statists

Just when I was ready to start on the next scheduled Poster Child Henry Waxman (D-CA) jumped in front of the line with a 684-page “discussion draft” of a climate bill he is offering with Ed Markey (D-MA) that cries out for condemnation right now. Both of these extreme left-wing Dems are in their 18th terms at the FedGov trough. The damage they have wreaked upon our Republic over the past 35 years is inestimable but this bill would surely be the most destructive to our freedoms and prosperity for generations.

Both have earned the lowest ratings possible “F” from the National Taxpayers Union for their profligate spending for ever greater and more invasive government. These are statists who know of no area where you should not be governed in minute detail by FedGov. The climate bill they propose bears out this observation –read on lest you think I exaggerate.

The Wall Street Journal says, “Right off, the bill mandates that 25% of U.S. electricity come from wind, solar, geothermal or biomass by 2025. …nuclear doesn't count….Despite political favoritism and billions in subsidies, wind still only accounts for about 1% of U.S. net electric generation, and solar all of one-hundredth of 1%. So now the liberal solution is simply to force people to buy them, a la the ethanol mandate. Yet it will be difficult for renewables to ever reach 25%, given their inherent limitations (intermittency) and, ironically, green opposition (no new power lines). That won't stop Congress from punishing utilities that fail to meet an impossible goal…. “New homes ‘with slanted roofs,’ for instance, will be required to meet a ‘solar reflectance’ standard if they use ‘fiberglass asphalt-shingle roofing.’ …everything in homes will also face new efficiency regulations -- including furnaces, laundry machines, dishwashers, ‘showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals,’ even (or especially?) jacuzzis.” They will regulate and restrict all types of lighting: “… the bill says the feds can bring legal charges in U.S. district courts against "any person . . . distributing in commerce any covered product which does not comply." The Journal editorial concludes, “Americans should begin to understand the micromanagement over their daily lives that Congress has in store. All you have to do is read Mr. Waxman's plan.”

But these poster boys have a long record of wanting total control over your life while enriching themselves in what is now euphemistically called “public service.”

Waxman and Markey, like most of the poster children, have never worked in the real world at any productive job. They have law degrees, went into the state legislature for six and four years respectively and then into congress where they have been since 1976. Both represent extremely liberal districts –Waxman’s encompassing Hollywood, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills; Markey’s an affluent white collar district around Boston. Big liberal bucks.

Waxman’s main issues besides FedGov control of energy are socialized medicine, abortion, tobacco, AIDS and gun control. On the latter, he says, "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Because he is busy taking our rights?

Markey’s positions are similar to Waxman’s, right down the liberal-left line. An excellent listing of congressional votes by issue is available on –check it out for detailed back-up of my summaries here.

Of course, they voted for the Iraq war but when the party line changed, they opposed it. Our poster boys hate George W. Bush and opposed his administration on virtually every issue including the war, Markey being especially solicitous of the enemy combatants. That is inline with his generally soft-on-crime record. They both voted against immunity for telecoms aiding in terrorist surveillance.

While Waxman often touts his Jewish faith, Markey is an ostensible Catholic who passionately embraced partial-birth abortion and other anti-Catholic issues. Both have 100% pro-abortion ratings from national Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and 0% from National Right to Life Committee (NLRC). They are in favor of same-sex marriage, too.

They’re largely protectionist, they vote for farm and other subsidies, being statists they oppose free markets and free enterprise most of the time. Pro-union, both are rated 100% by the AFL-CIO and are in favor of “card-check” that would deprive workers of the secret ballot. We need to grow the economy to be able to pay for all of their spending but do they facilitate growth? The Club For Growth rates congress on their votes on taxes, spending, free trade, school vouchers, entitlement reform and regulations. Needless to say, these guys are in single digits on that scale.

On school reform, they get failing grades again as they oppose parental choice and vote for FedGov funding and control of schools. They voted NO to school vouchers in Washington D.C. where they have proved so effective but the NEA being one of the pillars of the Party dictates how Dems vote on their issues. They even voted to take non-denominational prayer out of the schools and “under god” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Why, I ask? What harm was caused by simple prayers in school over the past 250 years or so that it has been the practice? Because the State is God to them.

They both have a pro illegal immigrant open border stance. Both voted: NO on building a fence along the Mexican border; NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project; NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. They favor citizenship for illegals as they expect by so doing their Party will get the votes of ignorant people who have little or no understanding of freedom, responsibility and opportunity.

I try to find some vote or some redeeming value for our poster children but, alas, these two are hopeless. As career politicians, they have just one goal and that is to be reelected and enjoy the power and privileges of their status as entrenched rulers. If they have any personal beliefs or principles, they certainly are not favorable to our American Heritage of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility.

Without term limits on congress we are doomed to be ruled by professional politicians who have none of the Constitutional restraints of a time gone by when our representatives observed their oaths of office and actually “served” the people rather than themselves, their precious careers in FedGov. Please go to and sign the petition to limit terms of congress. Our Constitutional Republic cannot survive Waxmans and Markeys.


Anonymous said...

This is a very interesting blog, and I'm with you on term limits, but why are you focusing only on the Democratic "poster children"? Surely, you don't think that the Republicans are without examples.

I'm a true independent -- as in I'm not registered with any party and I vote for whomever I think is best -- and I'm sick of each party (or its followers) blaming the other for our problems. No party is without responsibility for our country's problems.

So, either acknowledge and reveal that your intent is simply to bash one party's members or let's see some of the Republicans that need to be listed here. To make it easy, how about Ted Stevens or Duke Cunningham just for starters?

Philip Blumel said...

Arlen Spector (below) is a Republican, so I think your criticism is a little off the mark. But I agree with the point you make, we mustn't let partisanship get in the way of opposing unlimited government. Many rank-and-file Republicans with a generally market bent hurt their own cause by apologizing for the explosion of government during the Bush administration.

Arp D. Trivedi said...

I agree with AC. I too am an ardent independent and want to see term limits across the board. Terms unlimited is a disease that has corrupted all those in Washington.

It's about the legislation, not the legislators. They're just poor, lucky schmucks, unlike the rest of us, that have landed themselves a pretty good gig - one that keeps on giving. And who wouldn't want to stay?

Too much bashing for my taste. But I like the concept.

bobfo67 said...

What a pity to see a fundamentally good idea be lumped in with political ideology. Term limits have nothing to do with free-market capitalism, as such. Their purpose is to eliminate politics as a profession. From your bio and emphasis, I think you only want to eliminate term limits for people with a different political philosophy from yours.

If you are sincere, try out this idea:
(1) Limit both Houses of Congress to ONE term, no exceptions.
(2) Move all political conventions to the first week in October.
(3) Sequester all candidates between nomination and the election (no TV or other media interviews).
(4) Restrict all campaigning to a Government-printed and distributed pamphlet, giving each candidate two pages to say whatever they want. The Government pays the costs for all political parties or individuals who collected at least some small percentage of the vote in the previous election. Everyone else pays the prorated actual cost.

Jeff said...

I agree with the other comments. Term Limits as a reform to our democratic system needs to be kept separate from policy. When an incumbent runs again and again and again in uncompetitive elections, everyone loses. A lot of liberal Democrats would agree.

We need to give other people a chance to bring new voices and new ideas into the political debate.

Geo said...

Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

CAGW Names Rep. Edward Markey Porker of the Month July 2011

Geo said...

I absolutely believe term limiting politicians at all levels of government is a reform that has nothing to do with political party or whether the pol is a liberal or conservative. Term limits apply across the board.

I believe in limited, constitutional government and that basis does mitigate against the more statist types and Democrats are generally more statist than Repubs. They do the most damage to prosperity and freedom during their unlimited tenure.

But we have cited Repubs Specter, Bennett, Castle, Grassley, Lugar, Murkowski and Snowe --so far.

Geo said...

Now he's Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)and he introduced legislation for the federal government to monitor and analyze speech on the Internet, television, and radio looking for anything it considers "hate speech."
The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would capture Internet and other telecommunications that the government interprets as encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
This is a bad bill, even to the liberal Boston Herald editorial staff. It mandates that the government monitor and analyze speech and press statements that are protected by the First Amendment. The wording is deliberately fuzzy, so that although it sounds like it only addresses constitutionally unprotected speech, it reaches much further.
The danger of this bill
Although the bill innocuously purports to analyze electronic speech that might "advocate or encourage violent acts or hate crimes," it gives the government far reaching power to monitor constitutionally protected speech…even yours.
We believe S.2219 is a cloaking device for silencing Christians and advancing the homosexual agenda that Sen. Markey wholeheartedly supports